Mindless cruelty - Canada wasn't part of the USA's coalition of the willing, and it wasn't considered to be an enemy of the USA. Blair didn't have to invade Iraq - he spoke eloquantly and sincerely about the need to preemptively attack Iraq.

Amicus, The first Iraq war was a war of defence - Iraq had invaded Kuwait and the USA and Australia went in to help liberate it. You could argue the rights and wrongs of going in to help a country that isn't democratic - but that's getting off topic.
The second Iraq War was a war of pre-emption or aggression - that's the bit that made it illegal and a war crime. Millions of citizens in Australia, Britain and the USA protested peacefully prior to the war, because it was illegal and we didn't want any part of it. The reasons for pre-emptively going to war were very weak - Iraq had nothing to do with Al Queda or the Sept 11 attacks. And the UN had never found any evidence of weapons of mass destruction despite many years of searching.

Amicus the point has already been made about the difference between the first and second Gulf wars so I'll leave that one.

Much though I don't like the then opposition in fairness I have to assume that their support for the war at that times was based on less than full access to the available intelligence.

I assume that they did not have the same high level access that the government of the day had (or should have had). To a point they had to trust that they were being given an honest representation of the available intelligence and that the government had done due diligence on that intelligence.

In hindsight it appears that neither was the case.

Likewise it appears to me that the current government has been working to find a way of withdrawing our soldiers from both conflicts in a manner which minimises the harm. Our country having been part of the invasion's bears responsibility for those actions, any exit needs to be done in a manner which minimises the future harm to those countries. There is plenty of scope for debate about the mechanism for doing so.

Having said that it's also true that each government is impacted by the actions of those governments which have gone before. How much did Clinton's decision to authorise missile strikes against Osama contribute to the events of 911? How much did the actions of previous administrations contribute to the attacks that lead Clinton to that decision?

R0bert

There are many more worse than Blair that should be before a court.911 was just an excuse to go to war,steal energy and resources.

Zibigniew Brzezinski,"What we need is a truely massive and widely perceived direct external threat." Enter Osama and the new threat to replace communism,ie terrorism.

If they invade Iran,all hell will break loose.

Gulf One we are told was to assist Kuwait and oust an invader. However the US Gov’t may have led Saddam to believe that they (US Gov’t) had no issues with Iraq’s quarrels with Kuwait; they had no interest in Arab to Arab conflicts. Saddam took this to be a US “go ahead” and so invaded Kuwait.

The release of authentic documentation of events that led to Gulf One....oh hell, the whole sordid ongoing lot.......gives the impression of escalating pre-planned events for an “other” than stated objective. But if Gulf One was just another US deception, with its history of creating situations where it can transparently deploy its military when its diplomacy fails to deliver a pecuniary advantage for Corporate USA or a tactical benefit to Israel, then it will surely be revealed in the ongoing narrative of the unscrupulous unleashing of the “Kraken” by the US, on Western Asia.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ARTICLE5/april.html?q=ARTICLE5/april.html

I find it devastating and shameful that my own country has played such a willing part in the US aggressive adventurism that has wrought so much death, misery, forced displacement and destruction in Western Asia. It is no wonder that our South East Asian neighbours were so disappointed and saddened by Howard’s declaration of a willingness to pre-emptively strike targets within their sovereign territories without their knowledge or consent. Further rubbing salt into the wound, Howard displayed an attitude of nonchalance to their reactions to Australia’s new aggressive policies. With that disregard, he was clearly signalling that Australia was not a part of the region it lives in and is dependent upon for its bread and butter, but is a platform from which distant foreign powers can launch their efforts to subjugate the indigene people of the region.

I wish there was a way to apply a freeze on everything to do with Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc and handover to the UN and the ICC in The Hague, cause I still can’t see where any of those countries attacked Australia, the UK or the US!

Has anyone got access to the Tardis?

Blair, Howard, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld must be brought to justice for crime against humanity.

They should not be brought before the International Criminal Court (which only prosecutes tyrants from the 3rd world) for war crimes. Rather, they should be tried in an Islamic court so that, if found quilty, they would be stoned and beheaded.

John

A trial for Tony Blair!

You mean another Nuremberg or Tokyo Show?

You probably were in your childhood when I followed the proceeding of those trials.

The fundamental criteria, convened by the Judges there, was simple and totally militaristic; “the one who commits a crime at the order of a superior in rank,is not responsible for that crime”.

Without such convention, Justice untainted by revenge could have been possible.

What we had instead was 'Victor Justice'.

John the laughter that you regaled me some time ago at a venue in Melbourne was gratuitous on the light of a logic you fear may interfer with your credos.

It has been the Justice meted at Nuremberg and Tokyo that begot the Bush's, Blair's and Howard's dictatorships. Now thousands of Nuremberg trials will not free humanity from the scourge of Politician'.